I fear this might fall on deaf ears, but is it really just egotism and a lack of generousness for a great musician - who has honed his art and craft for years, quite likely earning a mere pittance in the process - to want some compensation when someone uses his chops as a basis for something which without those specific sounds would have been just workaday, boring stuff?

I'll pretend that's not rhetoric and say yes, it really is. Craft is something that cannot be stolen, it's an ability. What's left? Well, if there was a recording then there is a physical medium that can be stolen but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about information. It's easy to say "Thief!" if you see someone running out of a museum with a canvas in their hands but what about someone that momentarily adopts the style of someone else or quotes them in conversation? That's recontextualization. The moment that a piece of information leaves the mind of its creator it is free in the technical sense, not the legal sense which brings me to the question of why would we make artificial laws to try, vainly, to restrict the free flow of information? Information unrestricted leads a life similar to any organic organism. It reproduces, mutates and then dies out. That's about as natural as it gets. It's the mentality that information can be converted into material value and status that leads us to create insane laws about mental property that can't possibly be upheld. This isn't restricted to intellectual property or copyrights but that's another conversation.

Quote:

I get the feeling that this is a bit like Jean Genet - "Property is theft." A very facile statement, I find.

You mean Proudhon? Not sure. Anyway, you're right but that's not where I'm at with this. I fully support the view laid down in the constitution of the U.S. (a mythical document) which mentions nothing about the inalienable right of fame and fortune but I seem to remember freedom of expression in there somewhere.

They even made this video. You mother was wrong. This is what makes ya blind.._________________A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

Modern jazz has gotta to be one of the least authentic art forms ever.
I have heard jazz musicans do some nasty sampling without the use of samplers

Jazz player are not interested in authenticity, they want to play within the boundaries of the style, it's a fondness for a particular way of hearing the notes. If jazz was authentic, you would'nt have a section dedicated to it at your local record store.

Hmm, it can be argued that 100% athenticity is not needed in music._________________A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

To clarify: To be called a musician one shouldn't have to be a virtuoso, but I feel very strongly that one should learn the basics of at least ONE instrument. Music is a PHYSICAL thng, just as much as it is an emotional and an intellectual thing.

I couldn't disagree more Oskar. I think music is entirely a mental thing. I can't be bothered to learn an instrument properly, but I think I'm still entirely valid as a musician. It's not all just about getting air to resonate in tubes nicely you know...

_________________This message was brought to you from Beyond The Grave.

To clarify: To be called a musician one shouldn't have to be a virtuoso, but I feel very strongly that one should learn the basics of at least ONE instrument. Music is a PHYSICAL thng, just as much as it is an emotional and an intellectual thing.

I couldn't disagree more Oskar. I think music is entirely a mental thing. I can't be bothered to learn an instrument properly, but I think I'm still entirely valid as a musician. It's not all just about getting air to resonate in tubes nicely you know...

I suppose us musos (if that's a sufficiently derogatory term) are too full of hot air to have a valid opinion. Let's trash ALL "traditional" instruments and concentrate on our qwerty skills. I'll concede the point to the intellectuals and crawl back to my primeval ooze, shall I? _________________Where there are too many policemen, there is no liberty. Where there are too many soldiers, there is no peace. Where there are too many lawyers, there is no justice.
Lin Yutang (1895-1976)

I think that 'Authentic' in this conext is one of those words like 'Good' or 'Enjoyable' or 'Interesting'. It's totally subjective. Authentic doesn't mean the same thing as original or innovative which are slightly less subjective words.

Quote:

I couldn't disagree more Oskar. I think music is entirely a mental thing. I can't be bothered to learn an instrument properly, but I think I'm still entirely valid as a musician. It's not all just about getting air to resonate in tubes nicely you know...

I take this view too. There's a difference between art and craft. One requires years of training and skill and is easily quantifiable while the other is difficult to describe yet requires nothing but the will. They are neither mutually exclusive nor mutually dependent. Craft, in my opinion is just another tool at the artists' disposal but it's certainly not the only one.

ppose us musos (if that's a sufficiently derogatory term) are too full of hot air to have a valid opinion. Let's trash ALL "traditional" instruments and concentrate on our qwerty skills. I'll concede the point to the intellectuals and crawl back to my primeval ooze, shall I? :twisted:

no need to take things personally. I'm a muso as well. I have 10 years of classical guitar training under my belt but I don't believe it's any less artistic to press a few buttons than to tear through arpeggios with only your fingers even if it's less skillful.

mind you ...the tin whistle or the washboard or the guitar or the whatever is easy to learn to play well...so.. no excuse ! hehehe... not physically playing an instrument is fine, but not 'well-rounded' for someone who does call themselves a musician_________________ Spiral Recordings

I think that 'Authentic' in this conext is one of those words like 'Good' or 'Enjoyable' or 'Interesting'. It's totally subjective. Authentic doesn't mean the same thing as original or innovative which are slightly less subjective words.

Quote:

I couldn't disagree more Oskar. I think music is entirely a mental thing. I can't be bothered to learn an instrument properly, but I think I'm still entirely valid as a musician. It's not all just about getting air to resonate in tubes nicely you know...

I take this view too. There's a difference between art and craft. One requires years of training and skill and is easily quantifiable while the other is difficult to describe yet requires nothing but the will. They are neither mutually exclusive nor mutually dependent. Craft, in my opinion is just another tool at the artists' disposal but it's certainly not the only one.

I still say that if one can't be arsed to even TRY an instrument, one isn't a musician, but a SOUND DESIGNER, a valid means of expression in itself, but bandying post-modern words like "recontextualizing," "appropriative art" and so on just doesn't cut the ice with me. If music should get turned into something totally removed from the physical world, I'd be sad indeed.
Incidentally, this reminds me of my days as a music student. For some perverse reason, conversation around the canteen table turned to "Which faculty would you rather lose - your hearing or your eyesight?" Naturally(?), most of us would rather keep our hearing, as we'd read about all the great blind musicians and singers out there, who we felt had an edge on their sighted counterparts in so many ways - sense of pitch and time, expressiveness, technique etc. Our counterpoint teacher had joined us during the discussion, and when we asked him, he said that he'd rather keep his eyesight. We were all shocked, and demanded to know how he could make such a preposterous statement. He said: "If I kept my eysight, I would be able to continue almost like before, AND I could read musical scores and hear the sounds and the music in my head - without all the human error."_________________Where there are too many policemen, there is no liberty. Where there are too many soldiers, there is no peace. Where there are too many lawyers, there is no justice.
Lin Yutang (1895-1976)

I still say that if one can't be arsed to even TRY an instrument, one isn't a musician, but a SOUND DESIGNER, a valid means of expression in itself, but bandying post-modern words like "recontextualizing," "appropriative art" and so on just doesn't cut the ice with me.

"appropriative art" is your term and a very amusing one at that. However, brandying words like "post-modern" doesn't make the technique any less powerful. People have been doing it for a long time. Particualrly in poetry where the recontexualization of words is the basic tool.

Quote:

If music should get turned into something totally removed from the physical world, I'd be sad indeed.

It already is. It's something that happens inside people. It's their experience. What does it matter the medium used to instigate that experience? I mean generally. The medium is a matter of preference rather than necessity.

Quote:

He said: "If I kept my eysight, I would be able to continue almost like before, AND I could read musical scores and hear the sounds and the music in my head - without all the human error."

Interesting. I'd have to go with ears. I could visualize scores AND keep the human error which I happen to like but I sure would miss paintings and film. Can I just lose the legs?

I suppose us musos (if that's a sufficiently derogatory term) are too full of hot air to have a valid opinion. Let's trash ALL "traditional" instruments and concentrate on our qwerty skills. I'll concede the point to the intellectuals and crawl back to my primeval ooze, shall I?

Hmmm. It's not so much the hot air that bothers me as all that saliva. Yuk! You dirty musicians with your wet patches next to your seats...

And don't get all qwerty with me, amino soup boy!

[/b]_________________This message was brought to you from Beyond The Grave.

I still say that if one can't be arsed to even TRY an instrument, one isn't a musician, but a SOUND DESIGNER, a valid means of expression in itself, but bandying post-modern words like "recontextualizing," "appropriative art" and so on just doesn't cut the ice with me.

"appropriative art" is your term and a very amusing one at that. However, brandying words like "post-modern" doesn't make the technique any less powerful. People have been doing it for a long time. Particualrly in poetry where the recontexualization of words is the basic tool.

Quote:

If music should get turned into something totally removed from the physical world, I'd be sad indeed.

It already is. It's something that happens inside people. It's their experience. What does it matter the medium used to instigate that experience? I mean generally. The medium is a matter of preference rather than necessity.

Quote:

He said: "If I kept my eysight, I would be able to continue almost like before, AND I could read musical scores and hear the sounds and the music in my head - without all the human error."

Interesting. I'd have to go with ears. I could visualize scores AND keep the human error which I happen to like but I sure would miss paintings and film. Can I just lose the legs?

Being a huge fan of Winnie the Pooh, I'd have to say, can I keep them all, please?

Recontextualization is an interesting intellectual manouever, and it may play havoc with your audience's sensibilities, but there's a difference between using a speech snippet, or even a drummer's breathing, in a specific setting where YOUR use of that soundbyte is what makes it work as an artistic statement, and just obtaining some drum loops, some vocal loops and so on and pasting them together, saying "Listen to my new song!"
In case you think I'm an advocate of bland, competent, inoffensive pap: This weekend I played a short set for the BIG bank that sponsors the Hell Blues Festival. I got a warm introduction from the Company President, and my first words to the select audience were: " I really HATE the Blues!" _________________Where there are too many policemen, there is no liberty. Where there are too many soldiers, there is no peace. Where there are too many lawyers, there is no justice.
Lin Yutang (1895-1976)

Hmmm. It's not so much the hot air that bothers me as all that saliva. Yuk! You dirty musicians with your wet patches next to your seats...
]

I like that concept! I think I'll try and invent a wind-driven guitar! Do they give grants for that in the EU, do you think?
Wet patches? Why, of course, do you expect us to perform fully clothed? Are you some sort of fetishist? We should be told! _________________Where there are too many policemen, there is no liberty. Where there are too many soldiers, there is no peace. Where there are too many lawyers, there is no justice.
Lin Yutang (1895-1976)

Being a huge fan of Winnie the Pooh, I'd have to say, can I keep them all, please?

Yes, let's.

Quote:

Recontextualization is an interesting intellectual manouever, and it may play havoc with your audience's sensibilities, but there's a difference between using a speech snippet, or even a drummer's breathing, in a specific setting where YOUR use of that soundbyte is what makes it work as an artistic statement, and just obtaining some drum loops, some vocal loops and so on and pasting them together, saying "Listen to my new song!"

I won't argue with that. As far as havoc goes I'd have to say that's a narrow view of the possibilities. This conversation makes me wonder what you think about abstract impressionism.

Quote:

In case you think I'm an advocate of bland, competent, inoffensive pap: This weekend I played a short set for the BIG bank that sponsors the Hell Blues Festival. I got a warm introduction from the Company President, and my first words to the select audience were: " I really HATE the Blues!" :twisted:

Abstract impressionism:
Well, it's been a while since went to UNI, so that part of my brain isn't really up to scratch anymore ( if it ever was), but I seem to remember liking Debussy's stuff at the age of 14 - still love it! That's quite abstract, though I get the feeling you were more interested in a discourse on said subject. I'd like to, but that's beyond me, I'm afraid.

That last jibe about there not being many innovations in the Blues scene since abot 1940; What can I say? I bow to your knowledge.
Seems I must revise my thoughts on Ray Charles, Chuck Berry, Jimi Hendrix, Muddy Waters, Muddy Waters et al._________________Where there are too many policemen, there is no liberty. Where there are too many soldiers, there is no peace. Where there are too many lawyers, there is no justice.
Lin Yutang (1895-1976)

Hmm... I guess Debussy probably is a modernist composer. However, modernism in music is a hard nut to crack._________________A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

That last jibe about there not being many innovations in the Blues scene since abot 1940; What can I say? I bow to your knowledge.
Seems I must revise my thoughts on Ray Charles, Chuck Berry, Jimi Hendrix, Muddy Waters, Muddy Waters et al.

I think of them as rock musicians. I guess it just depends on where you mentally draw the line between blues and rock.

I get the feeling that this is a bit like Jean Genet - "Property is theft." A very facile statement, I find.

Genet's real problem was that he spent more time writing about sex than practicing it--and it's clear he needed a lot of practice.--but simians are like that._________________The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum

Please support our site. If you click through and buy from our affiliate partners, we earn a small commission.